Retroactive laws aren't always a bad thing in cases where they forgive crimes. It's possible that according to a strict interpretation of a law, someone is guilty, but according to any reasonable moral standards, they didn't actually do anything wrong. Jury nullification is a possibility, but there's no good reason to rely on a single mechanism.
Not that I'm saying that the Telcos did nothing wrong. Just that conceptually there's a good reason that such retroactive laws are possible.
Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."
Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*
*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"
It's about actions, not beliefs. Believe the world is made of squashed bananas and everyone is born with 8 legs. All fine by me.
Sue people for sharing what you claim to be the truth - Not so fine. Indoctrinate people into your religion and isolate them from their friends and family - Also not fine. Accuse your critics of being terrorists - Also not fine. Accuse critics of being terrorists and criminals - Also not fine. Using a hoax "personality test" that tests nothing in order to trick people out of their money - Also not fine.
They wouldn't win. You can only win libel damages if you can prove harm to your reputation. Anonymous aren't saying who they are. Therefore there is no reputation to be harmed.
The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.
It's powered by the hopeless optimism of journalists when confronted with something that defies the laws of physics. So it's not exactly a perpetual motion machine, but I don't think the fuel supply will ever run down.
Actually, a lot of countries have copyright on public documents. Personally, I think all of them should be public domain but in practice it doesn't usually make a lot of difference.
Security theatre at a railway station would be a much harder sell. Nobody is going to fly a train into a skyscraper. They're not going to have a lot of luck hijacking it either.
"Take me to Mexico!"
"We can't. The tracks only go as far as California"
True. And it's a shame. British technology, when it's actually completed, can be pretty good. The APT was an extremely impressive train, effectively killed by the media. The British were pretty close to breaking the sound barrier but never developed it. Black Arrow was successful after only three test launches at a fraction of the cost of either Russia or America's space programmes.
By supporting Ron Paul, voters threaten to take votes away from other candidates whose views don't match those of the voter. It forces the other candidates to shift their position in order to not lose these votes.
That 5 percent doesn't use technical support or many of the services that are included. A lot of the 95% are gamers, who don't use a lot of bandwidth but do use it for long periods and need connections good for fast bursts. "Making good use" depends on what you actually want the network for.
Never have understood how the Superbowl is a "non dramatic musical work", but presumably it's covered.
The thing is, the law doesn't say that it's a copyright violation if the screen is larger than 55 inches (or any of the other clauses). It says it isn't a violation if the screen is smaller than that (and all of the other clauses). Home viewing is still permitted if you have a 100" projection screen.
I've always wondered why MS is so pro-software patents.
Patent licensing is certainly not a major revenue source, they tend to be too PR savvy to be particularly aggressive with violators, but have, from time to time, lost a reasonable amount of money through litigation. As far as vague veiled threats about Linux go, most of the users consider themselves to be immune from being sued by Microsoft, so it's not a lot of use there either.
Is that really the case? I thought the 686 line and the Pentium 4 was native x86 CISC. Or did that line stop more than 10 years ago?
The thing is, he should have been right... The x86 decode adds extra complexity and should not be necessary. Intel should ave gone for a less 8086-ish design for the 386. It's not a nice instruction set and really doesn't lend itself to modern architectures.
A good question. But I don't think it invalidates the argument. The amount of infringement is relevant. It's not the whole story. The amount serves to indicate the intent. Intent is what's important here.
It's about defence and reasonable doubt.
Now, it's possible that Google exists entirely as a front for an international piracy cartel. However, there's not a lot of evidence for it. They do allow infringement, but can you really argue that they intend to? It seems quite likely that it's all accidental. They will remove illegal material from their index. They don't actively encourage people to add illegal material. A reasonable man (which is typically the test used) would not come to the conclusion that Google were actively promoting copyright infringement.
Because they call themselves "The Pirate Bay", mock anyone who complains of copyright infringement, and index more files that infringe copyright than those that don't. Is it reasonable to think their purpose is anything other than to infringe copyright?
think the parent is making the point that just because something/someone might be used to facilitate the violation of IP law, shouldn't justify a lawsuit like this.
And I'm making the point that there's a difference between being able to be used to facilitate the violation of the law and having the sole purpose of violating the law.
Should we close them down? Should I be fined for publishing that link? Where do you draw the line?
You're infringement is too trivial to consider and you're not making money from it. Tell google that those links violate copyright and they'll take them down. Tell TPB that their torrents are violating copyright and they'll post it to their website with sarcastic comments. 90% of the sirtes indexed by Google are legal. 90% of the torrents on TPB are not legal.
Most photocopiers are used for legal purposes. They are sold for legal purposes.
Do you consider the point of Google to be indexing illegal torrents? Or do you consider the point of The Pirate Bay to be something other than facilitating piracy?
The Pirate bay insisted for years that what they were doing was legal under Swedish law.
A per usual, this was a legal opinion based on an extremely naive understanding of how the law actually works. It seems that some people disagree with this opinion. "Some people" may even be right.
Seriusly, guys. If you're going to put your faith in a legal argument, make sure that the legal argument actually has some basis in established law.
This isn't too bad an idea. At least when combined with "Create a universal interface table for all applications that can be written to by current software manufacturers.". A smaller simpler self contained API would be a good idea. A compatibility layer can be written for this for legacy applications. Prevent developers from mixing and matching old and new code. Few people run applications that are more than a few years old. The compatibility layer could be deprecated after a few years.
"Sell the OS for $19.99. Then build a dozen or so add-ons that users can bolt on to create the task-oriented OS they want:"
They do this. Except they charge a little more than that for the OS. The Add-ons are called "applications". I'm not sure what he's suggesting MS take out of Windows, or why he thinks Microsoft would consider doing this. Sure, it would be better for the customers. But why would MS make put themselves out? They exist to make money. This would make them less money.
Oher developers would love it, of course. Provide the bits that aren't in Windows default. Carve up that 25% of the market between them.
Slashdot Mirror
Retroactive laws aren't always a bad thing in cases where they forgive crimes. It's possible that according to a strict interpretation of a law, someone is guilty, but according to any reasonable moral standards, they didn't actually do anything wrong. Jury nullification is a possibility, but there's no good reason to rely on a single mechanism.
Not that I'm saying that the Telcos did nothing wrong. Just that conceptually there's a good reason that such retroactive laws are possible.
Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."
Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*
*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"
It's about actions, not beliefs. Believe the world is made of squashed bananas and everyone is born with 8 legs. All fine by me.
Sue people for sharing what you claim to be the truth - Not so fine. Indoctrinate people into your religion and isolate them from their friends and family - Also not fine. Accuse your critics of being terrorists - Also not fine. Accuse critics of being terrorists and criminals - Also not fine. Using a hoax "personality test" that tests nothing in order to trick people out of their money - Also not fine.
They wouldn't win. You can only win libel damages if you can prove harm to your reputation. Anonymous aren't saying who they are. Therefore there is no reputation to be harmed.
The "origins" story of Scientology is total bunk that sounds like bad sci-fi written by a sleep-deprived crackhead. You can't even spin this as a parable like with Biblical accounts, etc. It's just plain trash that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is a for-profit organisation masquerading as a religion, the secrecy, their aggressive legal tactics, their apparent refusal to ever apologise for any mistake they've made, and their underhand tactics to get and keep recruits.
But you can copyright the Verilog and VHDL code used to describe the designs.
Not sure about netlists. Once you get down to it, there's a grey area between software and hardware with and FPGA.
It's powered by the hopeless optimism of journalists when confronted with something that defies the laws of physics. So it's not exactly a perpetual motion machine, but I don't think the fuel supply will ever run down.
Actually, a lot of countries have copyright on public documents. Personally, I think all of them should be public domain but in practice it doesn't usually make a lot of difference.
Does it save the publishers money?
I thought writers were paid per script. They still need those scripts to make shows.
How do filters know whether something's copyrighted or not?
There are many situations where nobody is sure.
Security theatre at a railway station would be a much harder sell. Nobody is going to fly a train into a skyscraper. They're not going to have a lot of luck hijacking it either.
"Take me to Mexico!"
"We can't. The tracks only go as far as California"
True. And it's a shame. British technology, when it's actually completed, can be pretty good. The APT was an extremely impressive train, effectively killed by the media. The British were pretty close to breaking the sound barrier but never developed it. Black Arrow was successful after only three test launches at a fraction of the cost of either Russia or America's space programmes.
Oh well. One lump or two?
It's true. pi even contains the number 666 after the 2440th digit! (And for you purists, is just after the 1205th)
Interesting to see some of the numbers though.
I remember there was a salshdot.org domain at one point which (I think) displayed slashdot in a frame. There was also amozon.com
By supporting Ron Paul, voters threaten to take votes away from other candidates whose views don't match those of the voter. It forces the other candidates to shift their position in order to not lose these votes.
That 5 percent doesn't use technical support or many of the services that are included. A lot of the 95% are gamers, who don't use a lot of bandwidth but do use it for long periods and need connections good for fast bursts. "Making good use" depends on what you actually want the network for.
Never have understood how the Superbowl is a "non dramatic musical work", but presumably it's covered.
The thing is, the law doesn't say that it's a copyright violation if the screen is larger than 55 inches (or any of the other clauses). It says it isn't a violation if the screen is smaller than that (and all of the other clauses). Home viewing is still permitted if you have a 100" projection screen.
I've always wondered why MS is so pro-software patents.
Patent licensing is certainly not a major revenue source, they tend to be too PR savvy to be particularly aggressive with violators, but have, from time to time, lost a reasonable amount of money through litigation. As far as vague veiled threats about Linux go, most of the users consider themselves to be immune from being sued by Microsoft, so it's not a lot of use there either.
Is that really the case? I thought the 686 line and the Pentium 4 was native x86 CISC. Or did that line stop more than 10 years ago?
The thing is, he should have been right... The x86 decode adds extra complexity and should not be necessary. Intel should ave gone for a less 8086-ish design for the 386. It's not a nice instruction set and really doesn't lend itself to modern architectures.
Nor do they use Linux.
Most of the machines that run Linux, or any similar OS do use an x86.
A good question. But I don't think it invalidates the argument. The amount of infringement is relevant. It's not the whole story. The amount serves to indicate the intent. Intent is what's important here.
It's about defence and reasonable doubt.
Now, it's possible that Google exists entirely as a front for an international piracy cartel. However, there's not a lot of evidence for it. They do allow infringement, but can you really argue that they intend to? It seems quite likely that it's all accidental. They will remove illegal material from their index. They don't actively encourage people to add illegal material. A reasonable man (which is typically the test used) would not come to the conclusion that Google were actively promoting copyright infringement.
Because they call themselves "The Pirate Bay", mock anyone who complains of copyright infringement, and index more files that infringe copyright than those that don't. Is it reasonable to think their purpose is anything other than to infringe copyright?
but how can BitTorrent be illegal?
Dunno. Who said it could be?
think the parent is making the point that just because something/someone might be used to facilitate the violation of IP law, shouldn't justify a lawsuit like this.
And I'm making the point that there's a difference between being able to be used to facilitate the violation of the law and having the sole purpose of violating the law.
Should we close them down? Should I be fined for publishing that link? Where do you draw the line?
You're infringement is too trivial to consider and you're not making money from it. Tell google that those links violate copyright and they'll take them down. Tell TPB that their torrents are violating copyright and they'll post it to their website with sarcastic comments. 90% of the sirtes indexed by Google are legal. 90% of the torrents on TPB are not legal.
Most photocopiers are used for legal purposes. They are sold for legal purposes.
Do you consider the point of Google to be indexing illegal torrents? Or do you consider the point of The Pirate Bay to be something other than facilitating piracy?
The Pirate bay insisted for years that what they were doing was legal under Swedish law.
A per usual, this was a legal opinion based on an extremely naive understanding of how the law actually works. It seems that some people disagree with this opinion. "Some people" may even be right.
Seriusly, guys. If you're going to put your faith in a legal argument, make sure that the legal argument actually has some basis in established law.
"Do an Apple and start with new code."
This isn't too bad an idea. At least when combined with "Create a universal interface table for all applications that can be written to by current software manufacturers.". A smaller simpler self contained API would be a good idea. A compatibility layer can be written for this for legacy applications. Prevent developers from mixing and matching old and new code. Few people run applications that are more than a few years old. The compatibility layer could be deprecated after a few years.
"Sell the OS for $19.99. Then build a dozen or so add-ons that users can bolt on to create the task-oriented OS they want:"
They do this. Except they charge a little more than that for the OS. The Add-ons are called "applications". I'm not sure what he's suggesting MS take out of Windows, or why he thinks Microsoft would consider doing this. Sure, it would be better for the customers. But why would MS make put themselves out? They exist to make money. This would make them less money.
Oher developers would love it, of course. Provide the bits that aren't in Windows default. Carve up that 25% of the market between them.